Ironically, Connery back in '62 was as much of a controversial choice as Craig was in '06 (if not more so). Relatively unknown Scottish actor with little formal education from a poor, working class background to play suave, sophisticated, gentleman secret agent. If there was an internet back in '62 there probably would have been a "Connery's Not Bond" website lol. If they ever made a film about the casting of the first Bond they could call it "My Fair 007" with Connery's Eliza Doolittle being tutored by Terence Young's Prof Higgins. Anyway, the casting and subsequent success of Craig does harken back to Cubby and Harry's idea of casting someone a bit more rough hewn and polishing them rather than trying to toughen up a pretty boy type. Certainly Craig in no way is as extreme as Connery was but IMO it does fit the old mold.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
edited December 2008
Mind you, The Rubbish Craig ReferendumTM* wasn't my own theory; it was someone else's---someone who repeatedly asserted that, when Craigger's sophomore film failed, Eon would see the light and send him packing. Clearly, despite extremely mixed reactions to QoS, it is not a failure in the way that counts most to producers, so jetsetwilly's appraisal* of that particular theory seems fairly sound.
I would disagree, however, that it matters not at all who is cast in the role...of course, Eon has never really 'screwed the pooch' on the casting of the James Bond character. Arguably Lazenby comes closest---not because he couldn't do it (in fact there was a flash or two of brilliance), but because his head was apparently up his arse part of the time (and while it was there, someone whispered some bad advice in his ear).
Each actor brings something different to the equation, naturally. And perhaps some of the actors haven't had an inordinate amount of 'say' in how things happen...although I think Moore's sense of how the character ought to be played had a tremendous influence on the final product.
But it might be argued that Craig has had more input than most, given that he's only done two so far. According to Forster, because of the writer's strike and the time crunch, both he and Craig had significant input on the script for QoS (make of that what you will! ), and Craig claims to have nixed a thing or two, even during CR's production, that might have otherwise made it to the screen. Again, take that for what little it's worth. Over the course of the films, they might have been better served if someone in the room had said 'no' a bit more often...
It's interesting to me that some don't find Fleming's literary hero to be at all emotive, and feel that he lacked any development of character when Fleming was striking the keys. Certainly he started out that way---Fleming conceived him as simply a character to be moved along by the action of the piece---but IMO a sort of organic evolution took place over the twelve novels culminating in YOLT...by which time he was, by God, a wounded and broken human being, consumed by the notion of revenge when afforded the opportunity. Therefore, to say that a 'Bond with a heart' is purely a creation of the film producers is not strictly accurate, in my own humble opinion.
While some clearly don't think that Craig is anything other than the latest version, others see him as a second originator of the part---which is not to validate the derisively Messianic tag of 'Second Coming' that some have foist upon him...and hung round the necks of those who happen to enjoy his work in the role.
Craig's Bond seems a significantly distinct take on the character from what has come before, in some fans' opinion. Is he More Fleming? Maybe. Less Fleming? If you feel that way, fine. But it's not necessarily naive to say that his take on the role is altering the parabola of the character and franchise...perhaps for quite a while.
Or perhaps not
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I have absolutely no problem with Craig as bond. After watching the cheese fest bond had been since Connery left, he's a refreshing take on the character. He's a good actor and even with the second movie having HUGE problems, Daniel Craig was certainly not one of them. I just hope the next director and script they hand him has something meaningful to add to the story because this one was utterly vapid and forgettable.
Loeff hits the verbose bottle! {[] Very well said. Also nice point from HB about Connery's initial casting, what a bad call that was.
In my mind, Craig is to the previous Bond that Laz was to Connery's: EON seemed to be saying both times, let's get this thing back down to earth. Of course beside head-up-the-arse syndrome, Laz also has to contend with replacing THE James Bond, something no other actor has had to deal with. '69 was also quite a down year at the BO in the states, although OHMSS did respectable biz elsewhere. So one could point to a few things re why Craig's Bond was stratospherically more successful than Laz's, but even though I really enjoy Laz in the role, hard not to say Craig is simply the better man for the job, and that audiences have responded accordingly. Not sure where I was going with all this, or even where I started, but there it is.
Oh yes, I remember: looking at the (relatively speaking) down films BO-wise, there does seem to be a direct correlation to the guy in the lead role either being WTF (Laz after Connery), misused (Moore in TMWTGG), misused again (Moore overstaying his welcome), and just not that great a fit (poor Dalton). Really, the only bullet-proof Bonds (besides the Man) are Brosnan and Craig (so far). Again, not according to fans' tastes as that's a very small percentage of BO, but simply the numbers which equate to general audiences. So yes, no Bond has sunk EON's ship even if a couple have tipped it a bit. But there's certainly an arc of acceptance in the role IMO, that does directly reflect BO takes. Anyway, 2 cents.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
I think it's going to be a fine year for this particular vintage...
...Or, it's going to suck, and be terribly overrated.*
B-)
* Token exploitable quote, isolated for future posters' convenience.
{:)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
He, indeed, has had input in the direction of the films.
Moreover, I know more than a few women who never would have dreamed of purchasing a ticket for a Bond film who nonetheless have gone to both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace simply because Craig is in it.
To your first point, Craig has had no more input into the direction of the films than any other Bond actor before him. I don't think he showed up on the set of CR and said, we need to get rid of Q and Moneypenny, cut the gags, get rid of the gadgets, make Bond a loose cannon, have M yelling at him all the time, and we really need a shot of me coming out of the water rather than some hot actress. Decisions regarding the direction, look and feel of a film are made long before the actor even shows up on set. With Craig being a first time Bond, I am sure his input into the reboot was even less.
To your second point, you have mentioned before, that you know all these females that would never dream of going to a Bond film, but go because Craig is in the film. Why then have they not attended any of Craig's other films, that have all been relative bombs. Flashbacks of a Fool, The Invasion and The Golden Compass didn't draw many women to gaze at Craig. Seems to me, if they were going to "just" see Craig, then they would also attend his other movies, but they haven't.
The Bond films draw big crowds because they are, for the most part, well made films, that are almost always entertaining to some degree. Bond films are a proven product that audiences have learned to trust. As Jetset said, audiences will still go see Bond, long after Craig has left.
Comments from Craig in interviews -- which admittedly could be exaggerated -- suggest he had a lot more input on both films, pushing for Quantum, for example, to stay serious in tone and avoid the formulaic trappings of the "traditional" Bond films until, as he put it, they had "earned it." He reputedly had a say in nixing the filmed "Bond. James Bond" line. Not being in the actual meetings, I could be wrong, but it sure sounds like Craig is having more impact on the final product than his predecessors.
Your second point sets a standard I don't think any actor has achieved -- universal success in every project he or she has done. Beyond that, how does one know exactly why those films failed? Where they released on the same number of screens? What time of year did they play? What was the marketing and how effective -- was Craig even promoted as the star (I recall little of Craig in the trailer for Compass and even less for The Invasion, for instance.)? Are these same women choosing to watch these films on cable or DVD? (I know of at least two so far that have rented The Golden Compass and Layer Cake, respectively, just because Craig is in it.)
A better arbiter might be what is the increase in ticket sales, and does it correspond to a greater number of people like these women discovering Craig as Bond. Of course, even that is tougher to use as a measure because so much is now available on DVD and the Internet, and who knows how to track such viewings. But when I know women personally who ignored the other Bonds -- even when I tried my best to get them to watch -- but then sought out Craig's Bond on their own, something more must be at work than just it's a Bond movie and people are going to see it.
There's an irony here regarding Craig's input. If it is to believed (and I have no reason to) one of the reasons Connery sited for leaving the role was that he wanted more imput and was unhappy with the over the top gadget dominated direction the films had gone. He also wanted to get a piece of the action with a percentage of the profits (notice Connery always gets an Executive Producer credit on almost all of his latter films). As much as Cubby and Harry wanted Connery to be Bond forever, they were old school and no actor was getting a piece of the action ( that policy has apparently continued with Barbara and Wilson). However, the offspring are smart enough to know when they have a good thing going in Craig and seem to be a little more flexible when it comes to giving Craig some input and throwing him a nice bonus after the success of CR. Brosnan ironically shared the vision of a more serious, darker Bond but he and EON were obviously not on the same page at the time and wanted to move away from what Dalton tried to do and create the ******* son of Connery and Moore in Brosnan's Bond.
The question, then, would be: How much acceptance? Box office notwithstanding (we all know the numbers), where does Craig stand with Bond fans...and how well is he poised for whatever is left (One more? Two? Five? :v ) of his Bond tenure?
If you are to take a look at the the majority of those who disliked QoS...most of them (and I say this loosely, as there are a proportion of Bond fans who dislike Craig period...so this statement doesn't really include these people ) disliked the film because of direction, or lack of script, or the general lack of 'Bond of old', rather than Daniel himself...in fact I would say that it was Daniel's performance that was the redeeming factor of the movie, and I can't believe that this is lost on those in production, or Craig himself.
I am sympathetic to those who really dislike Craig as Bond, as he does bring a very different feel to the franchise, and a lot of this has been discussed in other threads. However I would like to think that we could see at least one more, if not two more Craig Bond films. I think Eon and Broccoli have two very good films on their hands, albeit 2 very different films, striding quite far away from the Bond movies of past, and it will be fascinating to see where they take the third Craig movie. I think we have a very evolved Bond now...we have seen what has caused him to be the person he is, a rather damaged soul, loyal to a fault and directed by his duty.
However, whether Craig himself decides to stick around will be interesting to see. I think he will definitely do one more....but another 3, I'm not so sure. He's not motivated by 'popularity' and he quite enjoys the rather more 'unconventional' type of movie...(Just look at 'Flashbacks Of A Fool') and I know that one of the major agreements he took on Bond was that he was still aloud to 'do' other projects ('Defiance' for one, which is out this month)
I really am curious to hear what Craig himself thinks of the QoS critics. And no doubt, will be discussed here....
Exciting times ahead I think.
She's worth whatever chaos she brings to the table and you know it. ~ Mark Anthony
While I don't have any dislike of Craig in the role, the thoughts being expressed about DC having more input as to the direction of the films may give me cause to, since it is the tenor of the films which cause me the most ire.
I know there are some who feel Craig is the most sincere incarnation of Fleming's character. This point I have disagreed with, and feel that he is a re-molding of the character into the "lone wolf/loose cannon" rebel that has been popularized by recent "non-Bond" spy films. If, then, Craig is the deciding factor in this new direction, then, yes, I think Craig should go (note that this is the first time I have ever suggested such a thing!). This thread is about whether Bond-fans have accepted Craig as James Bond, and in my opinion, the results are very mixed. I don't recall anyone saying "I was uncertain about Craig in CR, but QoS has convinced me. Go Craig!" If anything, I felt Craig's portrayal in CR was proof enough that he could do the job, but I'm still waiting for #23 for James Bond to actually show up. Many reviewers, Bond fans and non-Bond fans, have made their own personal observations that QoS is more a great action film than it is a James Bond film. I think the primary factor behind this is not Craig, but due to the fact that the re-definition of the character is taking the films away from James Bond. However, if Craig is in fact (and I don't know if this is the case) the primary force behind the new direction, too many films like QoS may quickly sour a large group of fans on him.
Many reviewers, Bond fans and non-Bond fans, have made their own personal observations that QoS is more a great action film than it is a James Bond film.
But this is true only on Planet Blue, according to Barry.
As for Craig taking Bond away from the character, I prefer to think that he's taking Bond back to what he was, and should remain. Please, no more fluffy-bunny Bond, we've had plenty of that IMO. Keep Bond as he is now: flinty and ripped from the pages of Fleming's novels and chasing nasty bad guys who aren't trying to blow up Nebraska with a space laser or get back at their big meanie of a dad, but are simply out to make money (Communism being passe) or kill Bond, or both, and perhaps a bit fantastically (like, with a giant squid!).
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
Blue, I really hope you get your giant squid one day :007)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
If there was ever a Bond to throw a giant squid at, it's Craig! {:)
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
Craig has said that Bond needs to 'earn' certain things. I'm very excited by the possibility that some 'old school' outlandishness might get sent our way---played in the classic straight-faced manner which, in the '60s, Richard Maibaum astutely dubbed 'deadpan spoofing.'
I think it can happen. And if it doesn't, I'll always swear it could've B-)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Craig has said that Bond needs to 'earn' certain things. I'm very excited by the possibility that some 'old school' outlandishness might get sent our way---played in the classic straight-faced manner which, in the '60s, Richard Maibaum astutely dubbed 'deadpan spoofing.'
I think it can happen. And if it doesn't, I'll always swear it could've B-)
For the first time in ages (eons? ) ), I think there's a chance that such things may just happen. While I'm still not thrilled by the casting of Craig, EON have shown that they're not prepared to simply play it safe and can take a few chances- and that opens up a promising future for James Bond 007.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
For the first time in ages (eons? ) ), I think there's a chance that such things may just happen.
My theory here is that Craig's interpretation of the role (and the tone of the two films thus far) has given Bond a kind of 'street cred' ( ;% ), in the 21st Century, that he hasn't had in quite a long time. Because he has been so dark of late, we might be more inclined to follow him into a Motel in the Adirondacks---or even a Garden of Death somewhere. Hell, the man might even get his pinky finger broken! :v
While I'm still not thrilled by the casting of Craig, EON have shown that they're not prepared to simply play it safe and can take a few chances- and that opens up a promising future for James Bond 007.
Well, Craig skeptics deserve to have fun as well! :007)
I think Cinematic Bond is better positioned---right now---than at any time since the mid-Sixties. They have an array of options; a palette with many possible tones and colours. All they have to do is seize the moment.
Opinions will vary
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Please, no more fluffy-bunny Bond, we've had plenty of that IMO. Keep Bond as he is now: flinty and ripped from the pages of Fleming's novels and chasing nasty bad guys who aren't trying to blow up Nebraska with a space laser or get back at their big meanie of a dad, but are simply out to make money (Communism being passe) or kill Bond, or both, and perhaps a bit fantastically (like, with a giant squid!).
Precisely...and it's these elements that are missing from QoS. You may mock the space laser, but if Fleming lived long enough, he would have written it into one of his novels, I'll wager. The giant squid, the garden of death, the volcano chair, the pirate ship...these are all basis for the flights of fancy that entered into the movies. Should Bond be "fluffy" as you say ala Roger Moore? I don't think so, but neither do I think he should be portrayed as a mere thug who's never worn a tuxedo or delights in purposefully wrecking a bystander's Range Rover.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
Should Bond be "fluffy" as you say ala Roger Moore? I don't think so, but neither do I think he should be portrayed as a mere thug who's never worn a tuxedo or delights in purposefully wrecking a bystander's Range Rover.
What's weird is that I can totally see either Connery or Moore (or Lazenby or Dalton or Brosnan) pulling the same stunt with the Range Rover in the Ocean Club's parking lot.
And...'mere thug'? Ouch, that hurts
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
What's weird is that I can totally see either Connery or Moore (or Lazenby or Dalton or Brosnan) pulling the same stunt with the Range Rover in the Ocean Club's parking lot.
To me, it seems very small and childish...If Connery's Bond, for instance, had an issue with someone, I think he'd direct it at the person - not the person's possessions when no one is looking.
What's weird is that I can totally see either Connery or Moore (or Lazenby or Dalton or Brosnan) pulling the same stunt with the Range Rover in the Ocean Club's parking lot.
To me, it seems very small and childish...If Connery's Bond, for instance, had an issue with someone, I think he'd direct it at the person - not the person's possessions when no one is looking.
But surely Bond's purpose here is to create a diversion, and get into the OC's security area unhindered, in order to advance the plot---not merely to cause property damage ?:)
Anyway...if you say so! {[] There are scores of threads dedicated to CR (and soon-to-be QoS!) Quibbles & Gripes. It's not really my thing.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Anyway...if you say so! {[] There are scores of threads dedicated to CR (and soon-to-be QoS!) Quibbles & Gripes. It's not really my thing.
I'm sorry, I thought this was a thread about audience perceptions of Craig's direction in the Bond Series.
You are right, but I feel that the Car issue is relevant. it was one of my favourite moments in CR as I think that Craig played it in a really 'Bondian' way. It did serve a purpose, but it was also 'just for Badness'. It tapped into that insolent sense of almost childish spite in a simailar way as Brosnan did by pushing over that piece of kit in TND once he overheard how much it was worth. Both Brosnan and Craig really connected with that spiteful sense of fun that Connerry first displayed. This for me is an important apect of the 007 psyche. It also lead to that nice bit of subtle humour from Craig when later the guy recognises Bond as possibly the Valet who trashed his Car. Lazenby gave us a similar touch when he paused on the way out of the Hotel room to snatch some of the Caviar, and again with the centrefold from Gumbolts office (I coud go on but you get the idea)
I love these tiny moments, and for me they give Bond that little something extra, a touch more charisma and class than his rivals, and make him much more than 'a blunt instrument' I hope that this element is developed in Bond 23.
I love these tiny moments, and for me they give Bond that little something extra, a touch more charisma and class than his rivals, and make him much more than 'a blunt instrument' I hope that this element is developed in Bond 23.
I love those tiny moments as well...the taste of caviar in OHMSS, Brosnan's glee as he let the BMW launch from the parking garage roof in TND (I admit I'm not sure what the expensive piece of kit is that you say he toppled). These moments were playful to me because they portrayed Bond's light attitude and composure, whereas in CR's particular instance, it was played as "I'll do whatever I d***n well please, cuz I'm Bond!" I don't view this as a "quibble" because I feel that this is the undertone of both Craig films and am only using it as one example to illustrate my point of view. Others may view it as simply a colorful plot device to get the character from situation A to situation B, but I'd prefer to get to B without sacrificing what I see as the charisma of the character.
As blueman said, it's "tomatoes and tomahtoes", and everyone perceives things differently. But as far as a referendum goes...QoS is going to send a signal to the producers as to "where do we go from here." I'll be honest, I don't have a clue what QoS is telling them. Reviews are mixed, leaning to negative (critically), so will they change direction? If QoS does well financially, it doesn't really mean they'll stay the course (it didn't happen with DAD). But if Craig does indeed have a lot of sway in the direction, but that doesn't mesh with what the producers want, then what happens?
I will say this - it's not EON's job to "please the fans." EON is in the business of making a film that people will see. If tastes are changing in the next few years, we may definitely see whole new type Bond played by Craig in #23. So who knows?
Making Bond a "real" person seems to be Craig's direction in his two films.
They have chosen to express this by having him "bleed". DC is constantly being kicked, cut, beaten and bruised. This never happened to his predecessors, and has managed to remove the implausible veneer of the "indestructable" oo7 from the films. "Bleeding" was a integral part of Fleming's oo7 - the notion that every time Bond completes an assignment, he looses something of himself (literally).
DC has also made Bond a remoseless killer. This is an interesting and I think very modern take on the charecter. The oo7 of cinema has always had a casual approach to the death of his assailants. After the Dent shooting in Dr. No, killing was either defensive or given a comedic twist. I would say the killing of Slate in QOS, which was very well done - was every bit the equal of the Dent shooting - and graphicly shows the difference between the old and new style of Bond.
Ironically this is not part of the Fleming Bond, who hates killing. This is very clear at the beginning of the "Goldfinger" novel, and in the short story, "From a View to a Kill". Bond's approach to killing is like a conscripted soldier - he does it, but only because it's his duty. Craig's Bond is remorseless over the death of adversaries, as he tells Vesper in "CR'06".
To balance out Bond's cold blooded killings, Craig's Bond is vunerable to forming emotional attachments. His love for Vesper was very deep. By the end of QOS Bond has forgiven her and is free to grieve. In the novels this is only hinted at. In QOS, the death of Mathis, which is fully on Bond's shoulders, plays out as an echo of Vesper's death - with Bond cradling both in his arms. It's a very intense scene, like the six martini conversation. Craig's Bond is able to show his emotional side without seeming a sop. This is an amazing step forward from the days of a slightly sobbing Lazenby, and Roger Moore's visit to Tracy's grave.
So I submit that clearly Craig's Bond is very different from what he have had before in either the books or the films. While in some sense DC has brought the Fleming Bond back, in the more important elements of charecter DC has made an attempt to show us a Bond we have NEVER seen. I think it is these new elements that are catching on with the audiance - prehaps even if they are not fully aware of it!
Craig's contribution is enormous! He has brought Bond from comic book camp to serious drama. While some may pine for the earlier, funnier Bond's, I would like to think that the referendum on DC's Bond may be that long elusive "Oscar".
Well written, 7289! {[]
I do believe Craig has done much to make the character more real. I do not feel he is the strongest representation of Fleming's character, mainly for the reasons you listed. I perceived the literary Bond to be a professional - as you stated, he kills because he's told to. Connery has often been lauded as the best Bond, and I agree, due to his ability to balance the predatory killer and refined business-like veneer. Dalton comes in second for me, while not as strong in the predatory killer arena, he certainly comes off as an intelligent, polished agent IMO. Craig veers the other direction it seems, capturing very well the essence of a vicious junkyard dog straining at his leash to do harm. I have found that if I needed to choose which aspect of Bond to watch, it's the refined aspect I respond to, so Craig's portrayal doesn't appeal to me personally.
But right now, that's the style, and until tastes change, I'll deal with it.
Well, it would make sense for Craig to become a more polished in Bond 23. Remember, CR was Craig's first official mission as a "00" and QOS is basically a continuation of CR. I think what we may see in 23 is the same cold blooded assassin but with more polish, more illustration of his "tastes" and more charming and bedding of women for Queen and Country.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
Anyway...if you say so! {[] There are scores of threads dedicated to CR (and soon-to-be QoS!) Quibbles & Gripes. It's not really my thing.
I'm sorry, I thought this was a thread about audience perceptions of Craig's direction in the Bond Series.
No apology necessary! {[] And I certainly didn't intend to irritate. It's just that I quickly lose interest in dissecting the minutiae of a film's perceived flaws, and all too often it just seems a convenient way of hurling dated produce at the stage. Finding plot holes in a Bond film is like shooting fish in a barrel---there they are, here's your spear gun, enjoy the sport...Admittedly, many people do enjoy it, and I generally leave them to it.
We just obviously disagree about what constitutes a 'Bond moment.' To you, it's yet another example of how Craig is ruining the franchise. To me, any Bond could have done that number with the German's Land Rover (and would have).
You see, to me it doesn't come at the cost of sacrificing any of the character's charisma...it adds to it. It's just Craig's bad luck that you don't approve, I guess!
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
Making Bond a "real" person seems to be Craig's direction in his two films.
They have chosen to express this by having him "bleed". DC is constantly being kicked, cut, beaten and bruised. This never happened to his predecessors, and has managed to remove the implausible veneer of the "indestructable" oo7 from the films. "Bleeding" was a integral part of Fleming's oo7 - the notion that every time Bond completes an assignment, he looses something of himself (literally).
This is an interesting and I think very modern take on the charecter. The oo7 of cinema has always had a casual approach to the death of his assailants. After the Dent shooting in Dr. No, killing was either defensive or given a comedic twist. I would say the killing of Slate in QOS, which was very well done - was every bit the equal of the Dent shooting - and graphicly shows the difference between the old and new style of Bond.
Ironically this is not part of the Fleming Bond, who hates killing. This is very clear at the beginning of the "Goldfinger" novel, and in the short story, "From a View to a Kill". Bond's approach to killing is like a conscripted soldier - he does it, but only because it's his duty. Craig's Bond is remorseless over the death of adversaries, as he tells Vesper in "CR'06".
In QoS, Bond also tells M that Vesper wasn't important, and I think both statements are lies---both to the people he's talking to...and himself. I think remorse hangs, palpably, over Craig's performance in both of his Bond films thus far. It comes in moments both obvious (the mirror self-examination in CR after the stairwell incident) and sublime (the wonderfully restrained expressions that wash across his face at certain moments in QoS, such as Fields' and Mathis' deaths)...though obviously too sublime for many fans' taste. The very fact that we're discussing layers in a James Bond performance (!) is remarkable B-)
To balance out Bond's cold blooded killings, Craig's Bond is vunerable to forming emotional attachments. His love for Vesper was very deep. By the end of QOS Bond has forgiven her and is free to grieve. In the novels this is only hinted at. In QOS, the death of Mathis, which is fully on Bond's shoulders, plays out as an echo of Vesper's death - with Bond cradling both in his arms. It's a very intense scene, like the six martini conversation. Craig's Bond is able to show his emotional side without seeming a sop. This is an amazing step forward from the days of a slightly sobbing Lazenby, and Roger Moore's visit to Tracy's grave.
So I submit that clearly Craig's Bond is very different from what he have had before in either the books or the films. While in some sense DC has brought the Fleming Bond back, in the more important elements of character DC has made an attempt to show us a Bond we have NEVER seen. I think it is these new elements that are catching on with the audiance - perhaps even if they are not fully aware of it!
Well said about a Bond we have never seen; but I'd add that this is possible because of the foundation in the source material...and the fundamental moment was the one in which Bond suffered the torture from the CR novel. Through that painful baptism of 'original Fleming,' doors have opened for the character that have never been opened before---which is why I've begun to think of him as the 'second originator' of the part.
I won't dispute anyone's assertions that Craig isn't exactly 'Fleming's Bond,' or that other actors haven't been stronger in other aspects of Fleming's conception of the character...in fact, I'm beginning to wonder how many times I'm going to have to make that particular point It's just that I consider this particular aspect of Fleming's Bond---i.e., the tough guy with a veneer of sophistication who essentially survives because of his toughness!!---to be one of the most important...or, at least (to me) far more important than a gadget briefing from Q, a bad pun, or a quick flirt with Moneypenny.
Craig's contribution is enormous! He has brought Bond from comic book camp to serious drama. While some may pine for the earlier, funnier Bond's, I would like to think that the referendum on DC's Bond may be that long elusive "Oscar".
{[]
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Comments
I would disagree, however, that it matters not at all who is cast in the role...of course, Eon has never really 'screwed the pooch' on the casting of the James Bond character. Arguably Lazenby comes closest---not because he couldn't do it (in fact there was a flash or two of brilliance), but because his head was apparently up his arse part of the time (and while it was there, someone whispered some bad advice in his ear).
Each actor brings something different to the equation, naturally. And perhaps some of the actors haven't had an inordinate amount of 'say' in how things happen...although I think Moore's sense of how the character ought to be played had a tremendous influence on the final product.
But it might be argued that Craig has had more input than most, given that he's only done two so far. According to Forster, because of the writer's strike and the time crunch, both he and Craig had significant input on the script for QoS (make of that what you will!
It's interesting to me that some don't find Fleming's literary hero to be at all emotive, and feel that he lacked any development of character when Fleming was striking the keys. Certainly he started out that way---Fleming conceived him as simply a character to be moved along by the action of the piece---but IMO a sort of organic evolution took place over the twelve novels culminating in YOLT...by which time he was, by God, a wounded and broken human being, consumed by the notion of revenge when afforded the opportunity. Therefore, to say that a 'Bond with a heart' is purely a creation of the film producers is not strictly accurate, in my own humble opinion.
While some clearly don't think that Craig is anything other than the latest version, others see him as a second originator of the part---which is not to validate the derisively Messianic tag of 'Second Coming' that some have foist upon him...and hung round the necks of those who happen to enjoy his work in the role.
Craig's Bond seems a significantly distinct take on the character from what has come before, in some fans' opinion. Is he More Fleming? Maybe. Less Fleming? If you feel that way, fine. But it's not necessarily naive to say that his take on the role is altering the parabola of the character and franchise...perhaps for quite a while.
Or perhaps not
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
In my mind, Craig is to the previous Bond that Laz was to Connery's: EON seemed to be saying both times, let's get this thing back down to earth. Of course beside head-up-the-arse syndrome, Laz also has to contend with replacing THE James Bond, something no other actor has had to deal with. '69 was also quite a down year at the BO in the states, although OHMSS did respectable biz elsewhere. So one could point to a few things re why Craig's Bond was stratospherically more successful than Laz's, but even though I really enjoy Laz in the role, hard not to say Craig is simply the better man for the job, and that audiences have responded accordingly. Not sure where I was going with all this, or even where I started, but there it is.
Oh yes, I remember: looking at the (relatively speaking) down films BO-wise, there does seem to be a direct correlation to the guy in the lead role either being WTF (Laz after Connery), misused (Moore in TMWTGG), misused again (Moore overstaying his welcome), and just not that great a fit (poor Dalton). Really, the only bullet-proof Bonds (besides the Man) are Brosnan and Craig (so far). Again, not according to fans' tastes as that's a very small percentage of BO, but simply the numbers which equate to general audiences. So yes, no Bond has sunk EON's ship even if a couple have tipped it a bit. But there's certainly an arc of acceptance in the role IMO, that does directly reflect BO takes. Anyway, 2 cents.
I think it's going to be a fine year for this particular vintage...
...Or, it's going to suck, and be terribly overrated.*
B-)
* Token exploitable quote, isolated for future posters' convenience.
{:)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Your second point sets a standard I don't think any actor has achieved -- universal success in every project he or she has done. Beyond that, how does one know exactly why those films failed? Where they released on the same number of screens? What time of year did they play? What was the marketing and how effective -- was Craig even promoted as the star (I recall little of Craig in the trailer for Compass and even less for The Invasion, for instance.)? Are these same women choosing to watch these films on cable or DVD? (I know of at least two so far that have rented The Golden Compass and Layer Cake, respectively, just because Craig is in it.)
A better arbiter might be what is the increase in ticket sales, and does it correspond to a greater number of people like these women discovering Craig as Bond. Of course, even that is tougher to use as a measure because so much is now available on DVD and the Internet, and who knows how to track such viewings. But when I know women personally who ignored the other Bonds -- even when I tried my best to get them to watch -- but then sought out Craig's Bond on their own, something more must be at work than just it's a Bond movie and people are going to see it.
If you are to take a look at the the majority of those who disliked QoS...most of them (and I say this loosely, as there are a proportion of Bond fans who dislike Craig period...so this statement doesn't really include these people ) disliked the film because of direction, or lack of script, or the general lack of 'Bond of old', rather than Daniel himself...in fact I would say that it was Daniel's performance that was the redeeming factor of the movie, and I can't believe that this is lost on those in production, or Craig himself.
I am sympathetic to those who really dislike Craig as Bond, as he does bring a very different feel to the franchise, and a lot of this has been discussed in other threads. However I would like to think that we could see at least one more, if not two more Craig Bond films. I think Eon and Broccoli have two very good films on their hands, albeit 2 very different films, striding quite far away from the Bond movies of past, and it will be fascinating to see where they take the third Craig movie. I think we have a very evolved Bond now...we have seen what has caused him to be the person he is, a rather damaged soul, loyal to a fault and directed by his duty.
However, whether Craig himself decides to stick around will be interesting to see. I think he will definitely do one more....but another 3, I'm not so sure. He's not motivated by 'popularity' and he quite enjoys the rather more 'unconventional' type of movie...(Just look at 'Flashbacks Of A Fool') and I know that one of the major agreements he took on Bond was that he was still aloud to 'do' other projects ('Defiance' for one, which is out this month)
I really am curious to hear what Craig himself thinks of the QoS critics. And no doubt, will be discussed here....
Exciting times ahead I think.
I know there are some who feel Craig is the most sincere incarnation of Fleming's character. This point I have disagreed with, and feel that he is a re-molding of the character into the "lone wolf/loose cannon" rebel that has been popularized by recent "non-Bond" spy films. If, then, Craig is the deciding factor in this new direction, then, yes, I think Craig should go (note that this is the first time I have ever suggested such a thing!). This thread is about whether Bond-fans have accepted Craig as James Bond, and in my opinion, the results are very mixed. I don't recall anyone saying "I was uncertain about Craig in CR, but QoS has convinced me. Go Craig!" If anything, I felt Craig's portrayal in CR was proof enough that he could do the job, but I'm still waiting for #23 for James Bond to actually show up. Many reviewers, Bond fans and non-Bond fans, have made their own personal observations that QoS is more a great action film than it is a James Bond film. I think the primary factor behind this is not Craig, but due to the fact that the re-definition of the character is taking the films away from James Bond. However, if Craig is in fact (and I don't know if this is the case) the primary force behind the new direction, too many films like QoS may quickly sour a large group of fans on him.
As for Craig taking Bond away from the character, I prefer to think that he's taking Bond back to what he was, and should remain. Please, no more fluffy-bunny Bond, we've had plenty of that IMO. Keep Bond as he is now: flinty and ripped from the pages of Fleming's novels and chasing nasty bad guys who aren't trying to blow up Nebraska with a space laser or get back at their big meanie of a dad, but are simply out to make money (Communism being passe) or kill Bond, or both, and perhaps a bit fantastically (like, with a giant squid!).
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I think it can happen. And if it doesn't, I'll always swear it could've B-)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
For the first time in ages (eons?
My theory here is that Craig's interpretation of the role (and the tone of the two films thus far) has given Bond a kind of 'street cred' ( ;% ), in the 21st Century, that he hasn't had in quite a long time. Because he has been so dark of late, we might be more inclined to follow him into a Motel in the Adirondacks---or even a Garden of Death somewhere. Hell, the man might even get his pinky finger broken! :v
Well, Craig skeptics deserve to have fun as well! :007)
I think Cinematic Bond is better positioned---right now---than at any time since the mid-Sixties. They have an array of options; a palette with many possible tones and colours. All they have to do is seize the moment.
Opinions will vary
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Precisely...and it's these elements that are missing from QoS. You may mock the space laser, but if Fleming lived long enough, he would have written it into one of his novels, I'll wager. The giant squid, the garden of death, the volcano chair, the pirate ship...these are all basis for the flights of fancy that entered into the movies. Should Bond be "fluffy" as you say ala Roger Moore? I don't think so, but neither do I think he should be portrayed as a mere thug who's never worn a tuxedo or delights in purposefully wrecking a bystander's Range Rover.
What's weird is that I can totally see either Connery or Moore (or Lazenby or Dalton or Brosnan) pulling the same stunt with the Range Rover in the Ocean Club's parking lot.
And...'mere thug'? Ouch, that hurts
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
To me, it seems very small and childish...If Connery's Bond, for instance, had an issue with someone, I think he'd direct it at the person - not the person's possessions when no one is looking.
But surely Bond's purpose here is to create a diversion, and get into the OC's security area unhindered, in order to advance the plot---not merely to cause property damage ?:)
Anyway...if you say so! {[] There are scores of threads dedicated to CR (and soon-to-be QoS!) Quibbles & Gripes. It's not really my thing.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I'm sorry, I thought this was a thread about audience perceptions of Craig's direction in the Bond Series.
You are right, but I feel that the Car issue is relevant. it was one of my favourite moments in CR as I think that Craig played it in a really 'Bondian' way. It did serve a purpose, but it was also 'just for Badness'. It tapped into that insolent sense of almost childish spite in a simailar way as Brosnan did by pushing over that piece of kit in TND once he overheard how much it was worth. Both Brosnan and Craig really connected with that spiteful sense of fun that Connerry first displayed. This for me is an important apect of the 007 psyche. It also lead to that nice bit of subtle humour from Craig when later the guy recognises Bond as possibly the Valet who trashed his Car. Lazenby gave us a similar touch when he paused on the way out of the Hotel room to snatch some of the Caviar, and again with the centrefold from Gumbolts office (I coud go on but you get the idea)
I love these tiny moments, and for me they give Bond that little something extra, a touch more charisma and class than his rivals, and make him much more than 'a blunt instrument' I hope that this element is developed in Bond 23.
I love those tiny moments as well...the taste of caviar in OHMSS, Brosnan's glee as he let the BMW launch from the parking garage roof in TND (I admit I'm not sure what the expensive piece of kit is that you say he toppled). These moments were playful to me because they portrayed Bond's light attitude and composure, whereas in CR's particular instance, it was played as "I'll do whatever I d***n well please, cuz I'm Bond!" I don't view this as a "quibble" because I feel that this is the undertone of both Craig films and am only using it as one example to illustrate my point of view. Others may view it as simply a colorful plot device to get the character from situation A to situation B, but I'd prefer to get to B without sacrificing what I see as the charisma of the character.
As blueman said, it's "tomatoes and tomahtoes", and everyone perceives things differently. But as far as a referendum goes...QoS is going to send a signal to the producers as to "where do we go from here." I'll be honest, I don't have a clue what QoS is telling them. Reviews are mixed, leaning to negative (critically), so will they change direction? If QoS does well financially, it doesn't really mean they'll stay the course (it didn't happen with DAD). But if Craig does indeed have a lot of sway in the direction, but that doesn't mesh with what the producers want, then what happens?
I will say this - it's not EON's job to "please the fans." EON is in the business of making a film that people will see. If tastes are changing in the next few years, we may definitely see whole new type Bond played by Craig in #23. So who knows?
They have chosen to express this by having him "bleed". DC is constantly being kicked, cut, beaten and bruised. This never happened to his predecessors, and has managed to remove the implausible veneer of the "indestructable" oo7 from the films. "Bleeding" was a integral part of Fleming's oo7 - the notion that every time Bond completes an assignment, he looses something of himself (literally).
DC has also made Bond a remoseless killer. This is an interesting and I think very modern take on the charecter. The oo7 of cinema has always had a casual approach to the death of his assailants. After the Dent shooting in Dr. No, killing was either defensive or given a comedic twist. I would say the killing of Slate in QOS, which was very well done - was every bit the equal of the Dent shooting - and graphicly shows the difference between the old and new style of Bond.
Ironically this is not part of the Fleming Bond, who hates killing. This is very clear at the beginning of the "Goldfinger" novel, and in the short story, "From a View to a Kill". Bond's approach to killing is like a conscripted soldier - he does it, but only because it's his duty. Craig's Bond is remorseless over the death of adversaries, as he tells Vesper in "CR'06".
To balance out Bond's cold blooded killings, Craig's Bond is vunerable to forming emotional attachments. His love for Vesper was very deep. By the end of QOS Bond has forgiven her and is free to grieve. In the novels this is only hinted at. In QOS, the death of Mathis, which is fully on Bond's shoulders, plays out as an echo of Vesper's death - with Bond cradling both in his arms. It's a very intense scene, like the six martini conversation. Craig's Bond is able to show his emotional side without seeming a sop. This is an amazing step forward from the days of a slightly sobbing Lazenby, and Roger Moore's visit to Tracy's grave.
So I submit that clearly Craig's Bond is very different from what he have had before in either the books or the films. While in some sense DC has brought the Fleming Bond back, in the more important elements of charecter DC has made an attempt to show us a Bond we have NEVER seen. I think it is these new elements that are catching on with the audiance - prehaps even if they are not fully aware of it!
Craig's contribution is enormous! He has brought Bond from comic book camp to serious drama. While some may pine for the earlier, funnier Bond's, I would like to think that the referendum on DC's Bond may be that long elusive "Oscar".
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
I do believe Craig has done much to make the character more real. I do not feel he is the strongest representation of Fleming's character, mainly for the reasons you listed. I perceived the literary Bond to be a professional - as you stated, he kills because he's told to. Connery has often been lauded as the best Bond, and I agree, due to his ability to balance the predatory killer and refined business-like veneer. Dalton comes in second for me, while not as strong in the predatory killer arena, he certainly comes off as an intelligent, polished agent IMO. Craig veers the other direction it seems, capturing very well the essence of a vicious junkyard dog straining at his leash to do harm. I have found that if I needed to choose which aspect of Bond to watch, it's the refined aspect I respond to, so Craig's portrayal doesn't appeal to me personally.
But right now, that's the style, and until tastes change, I'll deal with it.
No apology necessary! {[] And I certainly didn't intend to irritate. It's just that I quickly lose interest in dissecting the minutiae of a film's perceived flaws, and all too often it just seems a convenient way of hurling dated produce at the stage. Finding plot holes in a Bond film is like shooting fish in a barrel---there they are, here's your spear gun, enjoy the sport...Admittedly, many people do enjoy it, and I generally leave them to it.
We just obviously disagree about what constitutes a 'Bond moment.' To you, it's yet another example of how Craig is ruining the franchise. To me, any Bond could have done that number with the German's Land Rover (and would have).
You see, to me it doesn't come at the cost of sacrificing any of the character's charisma...it adds to it. It's just Craig's bad luck that you don't approve, I guess!
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Can't disagree with that.
I do disagree with that. I find him extremely competent, but far from remorseless.
In QoS, Bond also tells M that Vesper wasn't important, and I think both statements are lies---both to the people he's talking to...and himself. I think remorse hangs, palpably, over Craig's performance in both of his Bond films thus far. It comes in moments both obvious (the mirror self-examination in CR after the stairwell incident) and sublime (the wonderfully restrained expressions that wash across his face at certain moments in QoS, such as Fields' and Mathis' deaths)...though obviously too sublime for many fans' taste. The very fact that we're discussing layers in a James Bond performance (!) is remarkable B-)
Excellent point {[]
Well said about a Bond we have never seen; but I'd add that this is possible because of the foundation in the source material...and the fundamental moment was the one in which Bond suffered the torture from the CR novel. Through that painful baptism of 'original Fleming,' doors have opened for the character that have never been opened before---which is why I've begun to think of him as the 'second originator' of the part.
I won't dispute anyone's assertions that Craig isn't exactly 'Fleming's Bond,' or that other actors haven't been stronger in other aspects of Fleming's conception of the character...in fact, I'm beginning to wonder how many times I'm going to have to make that particular point
{[]
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Craig really makes me want to be Bond.
"Better make that two."